SCOTUS Watch: Bye Bye Chevron

Half of the six (two doubles) cases left were handled today.

First, the conservatives (via Gorsuch) upheld a law targeting the homeless as a generally applicable anti-camping in public law which is not otherwise cruel or unusual. Thomas (as usual) goes for bigger game, wanting to overrule a sixty-year-old precedent that blocked criminalizing drug addiction (illicit status offense).  

Gorsuch spends a third of the opinion taking homeless policy and how much pushback the lower court opinion received before getting to the actual merits. Sotomayor (reading her dissent from the bench) argues the law is an unconstitutional attack on the homeless as well as likely having other problems. 

[Did I say I wish opinion announcements were available on the website? Yes? I'm told I have said this many times. Okay.]

The BIG (and expected) opinion today struck down "Chevron deference," which was firmly established over forty years ago. The Supreme Court used to give administrative agencies discretion to interpret statutes unless it was blatantly wrong or violated some constitutional principle.

Roberts handled the great white whale for many conservatives as well as those who spend so much time and money to get the right judges. Showing how hard it is to move tankers and so on, the ruling doesn't give judges free rein. Agencies still have some deference. Noticeably less though. Basically, the opinion makes it easier for judges to intervene when they want to do so.

Kagan (reading from the bench) dissented for the liberals, including explaining why the Administrative Procedure Act does not require the result. The majority claimed that was the basis of their ruling though mixed in "the courts say what the law is" rhetoric. Thomas and Gorsuch (who blathered on about stare decisis) would have also firmly relied on that. 

(Congress could in theory amend the APA but good luck with that.]

The decision gives federal judges much more power to interfere with the actions of administrative agencies. Agencies always had a large amount of discretion, often involving extremely technical and specialized matters. The modern administrative state only increased this principle. 

The courts, including the Supreme Court, already have means of causing problems. There is the made-up "major questions doctrine," for instance, that has repeatedly caused the Biden Administration problems. The concept here is that when a piece of legislation is deemed too big, the courts can strike down things that allegedly go "too far."  

This concept was involved in the final opinion, which will make it harder to address January 6th. One law professor noted the opinion, which narrowed the reach of one prosecution approach, reaches around 20% of the defendants. Not Trump, another assures us, well, not likely. Uh-huh. 

Roberts took this one too. Jackson concurred, opening with an acknowledgment that 1/6 was horrible (perhaps since Roberts went another way), but that can't allow them to stretch the law. Barrett for the other liberals strongly dissented that the government did so. For instance:

The case for the Government’s interpretation is straightforward. It can be accomplished in three paragraphs, as compared to the Court’s many, many more. 

Prof. Barrett also wasn't impressed by the majority's statutory interpretation that was "like using a hammer to pound in a screw." Their "atextual" reading did "backflips" and "failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches."  Again, Justice Jackson disagreed. 

The net result is that the government has to go back and try to show that a correct application of the law would validly prosecute this defendant and anyone else who can bring a similar claim. 

Again, this case isn't about Trump though I'm not going to be totally assured yet that somehow it will deemed to be. And, it is a "win" for that side in some ways. 

Monday was announced to be the final day of opinions. They are running out of "power grabs" though the delay of the Trump case surely was. 

ETA: As expected, SCOTUS denies without comment a request by Steve Bannon to keep him out of prison.